Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 5, 2008 20:34:34 GMT
I think this deserves a thread of its own. I'm also having trouble with formatting my reply in the Scorsese Thread - Wetdog's quoting of Mike Sullivan disappears when I quote Wetdog's quote of Mike. Discussion continued from here and here. Think of all the shitty indy films that never make it out of the festival circuit. Pretentious, stupid, repeating the same shit we've heard a million times. Yeah, I agree completely. But where are the good ones today? Or the great ones? Mike, it's not fair to judge something by its valleys. Should we judge American mainstream/studio films by its absolute worst? If we do, American mainstream/studio films aren't better off than American indies. Have you seen some of the films I mention below and some of the films of the directors I mention below? Wetdog, Charles Burnett, Kelly Reichardt, van Sant, Korine, Jarmusch and Lynch are independent. Other films that range from good to great excluding the works of the names I mentioned above: Maria Full of Grace (Joshua Marston) George Washington (David Gordon Green) Man Push Cart (Ramin Bahrani) Our Song (Jim McKay) Daughters of the Dust (Julie Dash) Protagonist (Jessica Yu) Police Beat (Robinson Devor) Raising Victor Vargas (Peter Sollett) Chop Shop (Ramin Bahrani) Shotgun Stories (Jeff Nichols) Clean, Shaven (Lodge Kerrigan) Keane (Lodge Kerrigan) Safe (Todd Haynes) In the Realms of the Unreal (Jessica Yu) I don't really like All the Real Girls, but lots do. I hate to say it; independent cinema has always been decadent. Decadent as in self-indulgent? Always?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 5, 2008 20:49:59 GMT
And American Cinema isn't that bad off. After Terrence Malick I really struggle to think of any world-class contemporary American filmmakers. Off the top - If Malick is contemporary (i.e., starting around 1973): Errol Morris Charles Burnett David Lynch Brad Bird A little older/slightly earlier start: Frederick Wiseman Albert Maysles D.A. Pennebaker Scorsese Woody Allen Coppola
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 5, 2008 21:30:50 GMT
More worthwhile (to varying degrees) indie films:
The City (David Riker) The Mad Songs of Fernanda Hussein (John Gianvito) Color of a Brisk and Leaping Day (Christopher Munch)
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 6, 2008 1:50:16 GMT
After Terrence Malick I really struggle to think of any world-class contemporary American filmmakers. Off the top - If Malick is contemporary (i.e., starting around 1973): Errol Morris Charles Burnett David Lynch Brad Bird A little older/slightly earlier start: Frederick Wiseman Albert Maysles D.A. Pennebaker Scorsese Woody Allen Coppola By "world-class contemporary American filmmakers" I meant the makers of contemporary world-class films, so it doesn't matter when they started, just that their current work is world-class. Bye-bye Scorsese, Allen and Coppola for sure. I'd name De Palma before any of them. There's no way I'd consider Brad Bird a world-class filmmaker. I haven't seen any Morris yet, and only The Glass Shield by Burnett, but it's mostly documentary stuff from both of them that's received high praise, right? That's kind of a different kettle of fish. Likewise Maysles, Wiseman and Pennebaker. I've recently become a bit ambivalent towards Lynch, too.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 6, 2008 2:05:57 GMT
Off the top - If Malick is contemporary (i.e., starting around 1973): Errol Morris Charles Burnett David Lynch Brad Bird A little older/slightly earlier start: Frederick Wiseman Albert Maysles D.A. Pennebaker Scorsese Woody Allen Coppola By "world-class contemporary American filmmakers" I meant the makers of contemporary world-class films, so it doesn't matter when they started, just that their current work is world-class. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Taking into account your paramenters, I agree. We obviously disagree here, but I think Ratatouille and The Incredible are perfect and great films. Iron Giant is great. First-rate narrative constructions and popular cinema. Morris, yes. Not Burnett. He makes fictional narratives. Documentary like avant-garde/experimental are different modes of filmmaking from fictional narratives, for sure. But world-class is world-class to me. But scratch the documentarians out of consideration if we're only talking about filmmakers in the fictional narrative mode. Lynch ain't my cup of tea, but critical consensus seems to remain pretty high on him so I felt I had to mention him.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 6, 2008 2:19:19 GMT
But the last dramatic feature Burnett made was The Annihilation of Fish in 1999, and before that it was The Glass Shield in 1994, which isn't much good if I recall.
So given our disagreement on Bird (though I very much like all three of his films) we're kind of just left with Malick again.
What say you on De Palma? His career is greater than the sum of its parts, I think.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 7, 2008 1:31:54 GMT
Oh shit, my bad. I forgot about the parameters again. Scratch Burnett. Also correction: yes, he does do docs, but his reputation lies on his fictional works.
I know I blaspheme on FCM when I say this, but Malick doesn't do much for me. Though, I'm not saying he's terrible or average or anything like that; I can see why he's lauded. However, like how Lynch isn't my cup of tea yet I brought up his name, I won't say scratch Malick off the list. I admire their work (more Malick than Lynch) more than love them. Kind of like, a chef's dish that has great texture, presentation, color, adventurous use of ingredients, etc., but it's not for my palate (e.g., too sweet for me).
I can't speak on De Palma; still a lot of holes there in my viewing from the 70s and 80s. Though, going by the parameters set in this thread, he wouldn't make the cut, either, IMHO, with Black Dahlia, Redacted, Mission To Mars, and Snake Eyes. Femme Fatale was very good, though.
How far back are we going to set what is contemporary?
How 'bout PTA? He has 2 masterpieces - PDL and TWBB - in my book.
Are we looking for directors with at least 2 masterpieces/world-class films since (fill in the blank year)?
David Fincher? Zodiac, obviously. (Yes, DVC, I know how you feel about it.) I thought Seven was a great, great movie. I'd nominate him.
Coen Bros. NCFOM, obviously. Fargo, too. Lebowski is one of the greatest comedies in the last 15 years. TMWWT and OBWAT? were very good at best.
Ramin Bahrani is definitely a choice for me with Chop Shop and Man Push Cart. Small, modest films compared to mammoth works like TWBB, Zodiac, TAOJJ, and NCFOM, sure, but near-masterpieces, I think. He's doing great stuff with the American underclass. Urban life is foregrounded in his films; I love that. I like when he cuts; I also like certain staging, and his sound design. If Italian Neorealism, Kiarostami, Dardennes bros., and Pixote are world-class, then Bahrani is.
Andrew Stanton with Finding Nemo and Wall-E. I know we disagree on Wall-E.
That's all I got for now.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 7, 2008 1:38:10 GMT
I've recently become a bit ambivalent towards Lynch, too. Why is that?
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 10, 2008 17:30:58 GMT
I know I blaspheme on FCM when I say this, but Malick doesn't do much for me. Though, I'm not saying he's terrible or average or anything like that; I can see why he's lauded. However, like how Lynch isn't my cup of tea yet I brought up his name, I won't say scratch Malick off the list. I admire their work (more Malick than Lynch) more than love them. Kind of like, a chef's dish that has great texture, presentation, color, adventurous use of ingredients, etc., but it's not for my palate (e.g., too sweet for me). I understand. There are obvious arguments to be made against Malick's work, particularly The New World, from an historical-political point of view if nothing else. Yeah, I wouldn't include him either. But he'd be ahead of any of his high-profile '70s peers. I just meant right now. I guess: which filmmakers' next films do you have strong reason to believe will be world-class? How far back you want to go is up to you (in terms of a period of inactivity). But if we were discussing this in 1996 I wouldn't include Malick, or Kubrick (even if I had loved Full Metal Jacket). If they're effectively not making films anymore, or on indefinite hiatus, I don't think they can reasonably be considered to represent the best of the state of the art. I mean, Bergman would've been out of the running in the '90s, too, despite making one more film in 2003. No, I disagree. I don't think that highly of those films, and I don't have great expectations for Anderson in the future. I think there's too much of the careerist in him. I don't think Seven is even close to great. Zodiac is. But to take a look at the projects he's attaching himself to now, I doubt Zodiac marks an 'arrival' of any kind, or a transcendence of his previous work. He'll go back to making films on a par with his pre- Zodiac work, which is by no means world-class. They're too erratic. I don't expect 'film of the year' kind of stuff from any of their upcoming projects. None of the Pixar guys make the cut for me.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 10, 2008 18:01:38 GMT
I've recently become a bit ambivalent towards Lynch, too. Why is that? It's been a long time coming. I'm not sure about him yet, but my opinion is definitely declining. There's something disingenuous in how presents himself, in the mystique he actively cultivates; the maintenance of the Cult of Lynch. I think he's very careful to be seen in a certain way by the right people. And I think that all indicates a lack of seriousness and a deadended'ness in the art itself.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Aug 10, 2008 18:10:37 GMT
Malick's a must, for me. I'll stand loyal to Lynch, too; he's still far too significant a contributor to American cinema. First and foremost, I love his films; but I haven't, thus far, bothered myself too greatly about the intentions behind works, be it with David Lynch or George Lucas. (This seems something suddenly active in you, wetdog; would you agree? I've been meaning to ask, too, whether there's anybody or anything in particular influencing you in this way.)
Who (else) comes close? Who, with tweaks, could be up there?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 10, 2008 18:17:57 GMT
They're too erratic. I don't expect 'film of the year' kind of stuff from any of their upcoming projects. I don't know how you could say that when they have made a solid movie like NCOFM recently. I think they have the potential to make great movies in the future. And no "Fight Club" while talking about Fincher? And what about Aronofsky? He has been making consistent progress with his films. I think all the movies he has made so far are excellent. I don't know how the upcoming boxing movie will be, but he hasn't made an ordinary movie to write him off yet.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Aug 10, 2008 18:32:47 GMT
I gotta make this quick; gotta run, but I'll come back and add-on via edit. No, I disagree. I don't think that highly of those films, and I don't have great expectations for Anderson in the future. I think there's too much of the careerist in him. Have you changed your 9/10 rating for TWBB and 8/10 for PDL? Or am I misinterpreting your ratings in that they're standalone ratings and not rating them relative to other films? What I mean is 9/10 to me seems to be shy of a masterpiece; a very great film. Or are you saying for what TWBB is (or what you feel PTA's intentions were with it) it's a 9/10 and not on par with the 9/10 films of Tsai who as you said in May is your #1 filmmaker of the moment? I'm not too crazy with what I've seen on the Burn Without Reading teaser. Some people on the internet were ecstatic. I see Joel Coen has 3 in pre-production; though, I don't know what any of them are about. It's a teaser, though, and I've been wrong many times. You've set the parameters, and I personally wouldn't go that route. I'd rather go by their last film released and previous work rather than if I expect their next work to be world-class or film-of-the-year. That is not to say, however, that if you look at it how I do that you'd think any of who I brought up would qualify. I'm still waiting on your updated Top 5 Filmmakers list!
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 11, 2008 2:28:03 GMT
I don't know how you could say that when they have made a solid movie like NCOFM recently. I think they have the potential to make great movies in the future. Sure they do, but none of their upcoming films sound particularly promising. If they were still planning on making To the White Sea I might feel differently. But, like Fincher after Zodiac, I think the Coens will return to their pre- No Country for Old Men form, which is, with the arguable exceptions of Fargo and Barton Fink, sub- No Country. Actually, I think I prefer Fargo to No Country for Old Men, I've just been overexposed. I dislike Fight Club. It's his worst film. Aronofsky's reach far exceeds his grasp as of now, and it remains to be seen which will be adjusted. Current circumstances seem to indicate a reining of the reach. And we'll see how he copes without Clint Mansell (if he ever does). I don't think Requiem for a Dream is much good anymore. It couldn't be more one-dimensional. I quite like The Fountain, but it could've done with some subtlety and restraint. It's actually ridiculously bombastic: poignant universalisms written with about the greatest conceivable enormity (and this on a scale slighter than what was intended). Why? The Wrestler and The Fighter actually both sound fairly generic, and next up he's rebooting the RoboCop series. I look forward to the Noah/Great Flood film he was talking about last year. Hopefully that gets made.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 11, 2008 2:39:56 GMT
Have you changed your 9/10 rating for TWBB and 8/10 for PDL? Or am I misinterpreting your ratings in that they're standalone ratings and not rating them relative to other films? What I mean is 9/10 to me seems to be shy of a masterpiece; a very great film. Or are you saying for what TWBB is (or what you feel PTA's intentions were with it) it's a 9/10 and not on par with the 9/10 films of Tsai who as you said in May is your #1 filmmaker of the moment? Don't pay attention to those ratings right now. And actually, that 9/10 for There Will Be Blood never accurately reflected my opinion of it, which remains a little muddled. But I do think it's far from a masterpiece. Punch-Drunk Love too. Their next films are A Serious Man and The Yiddish Policemen's Union. I don't doubt they'll be very good. But more than that I think is unlikely. But my expectations for their future work are entirely based on their current and prior form (and that relationship).
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 11, 2008 3:35:20 GMT
How about Wes Anderson? His films never disappoint. I could watch all of them all of the time.
Most film students seem to compare him with Truffaut and Renoir, among others (and by most, I mean, according to wikipedia). This leads me to believe he deserves a serious mention here.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 11, 2008 3:41:05 GMT
How about Wes Anderson? His films never disappoint. I could watch all of them all of the time. I have seen only Royal Tenenbaums and Darjeeling Limited. I like RT a lot, but DL was just okay for me. Would you rate his other films better than these two?
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Aug 11, 2008 3:48:59 GMT
I don't think Requiem for a Dream is much good anymore. What changed your perception* from then to now? Are you referring to the stance the movie takes on drug abuse - like, all the characters face a downfall? *Am I wrong in presuming that your recent posts are indicative of some recent major change in your morals/philosophies. You seem to be emphasizing on what movies should strive for in terms of content. It looks very political to me for some reason.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Aug 11, 2008 16:16:12 GMT
What changed your perception from then to now? A decision to not ignore what had been obvious to me since maybe my second viewing. I did and do somewhat admire the sledgehammer intensity of the film as a thing in itself, but it's about as honest and complex as an antidrug PSA. Yeah. Its treatment of drug use/abuse, crime, poverty, urban decay, healthcare, the penal system, prostitution, youth and old age, family dysfunction, television, mental disorders, etc. It touches on lots of serious topics but subordinates everything to the apparently 'gravitational' descent of its 'doomed' characters into the 'vortex' of drug abuse, which is rendered as epic tragedy. It's an exercise in style, emotionalism, and gross oversimplification of inescapably complex issues. Affected seriousness. There's been no change in my personal political philosophies. If this approach to film seems like something sudden to you and Capo, then it might be because I'm now posting more substantively than I have done in a long, long time. It is. But no moreso, I think, than my bygone navel-gazing eisegetics. And I abandoned that kind of 'criticism' ages ago. Between then and now writing about films has been tiresome, because it's amounted to little more than indexing a bunch of formal attributes and making value judgements on them; I love how he cuts here and I love the pace of this pan - as though these things can ever be understood in isolation from their application. Frankly, I just feel like if anything has happened recently, it's that I've become reinterested in cinema and am in a position in which I'm inclined to be more honest with myself.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Aug 11, 2008 17:59:21 GMT
I have seen only Royal Tenenbaums and Darjeeling Limited. I like RT a lot, but DL was just okay for me. Would you rate his other films better than these two? The Royal Tenenbaums is tops, in my opinion. Next would be Life Aquatic, then Rushmore, then Darjeeling, then Bottle Rocket.
|
|